John Conyers allied with Tom Delay against Pelosi?

I would hope that Rep. Conyers would take the time to respond to this press report in the Washington Post.

The latest Tom DeLay trick is to undermine Supreme Court decisions by denying funding to agencies that are responsible for implementing them.  The motivation for this is to try to circumvent Supreme Court rulings and ignore that the rule of law is the foundation of our system, and that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law.  

This time, conservatives are unhappy with the Kelo decision on eminent domain.  However, rather than abide by the law, Tom DeLay has announced that the Federal Govt will withhold funding from any city or county that uses eminent domain in the manner permitted by Kelo.

What's odd in this case - John Conyers is backing the Republican leadership on this - not our own.

More below

According to the attached story:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said he will introduce a Private Property Rights Protection Act that will prohibit any state or municipality from using federal funds for any project in which economic development is used as a justification for exercising eminent domain.

"This decision, in my opinion, has the potential of becoming the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century," Sensenbrenner said. He was referring to the 1857 ruling that affirmed slaves as property without the rights of citizens, and was overturned when the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

A committee description said the locality or state would "lose any federal funds that would contribute in any way to the project the property would be taken for." The lead Democratic sponsor is Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, and the committee said at least two other Democrats are co-sponsors.

Congressman Conyers allied with Congressman Sensenbrenner?  One of the staunchest opponents of democracy in all of Congress?  Well, I wonder what the Democratic leadership has to say?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said at an earlier news conference that "very central in that Constitution is the separation of powers."

"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that, as well."

Well folks, there you have it.  A Supreme court decision that many people don't like, but many people do.  Even here on Kos there is debate about whether it is a good decision or not.  But this country works because the word of the Supreme Court is final.  If you don't like a Supreme Court decision, you either amend the constitution or try to get them to reverse themselves.  You don't undermine the constitution by declaring that the Congress has the final word.  

Imagine - Congress could deny federal dollars to any city or county that does not prominently display the ten commandments in their courthouses.  Congress could deny federal dollars to any city or county who didn't open the public school day with prayer.  Congress could deny federal dollars to law enforcement agencies who obey court orders if Congress doesn't like the court order (see also: Terry Schiavo).  Those seem pretty egregious, but if John Conyers supports this type of bill, then precedent has been clearly set.

Congressman Conyers - Please immediately and publicly withdraw your co-sponsorship of this egregious bill that undermines our constitution.

-Fred

•  Seeing as Conyers is a Kossack

  I look forward to seeing his response here. Until then, I ask that people reserve judgement. I still don't fully understand all the issues involved in this one, and would really like to hear both sides of the story.

  by A Ball of Lint on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:23:39 PM PDT

  •  That's why I posted it...

    I would love to hear his side of the story.  I can understand opposing a supreme court ruling.  I can't understand rewriting the constitution on a whim to declare congress the final arbiter when since 1803 the Supreme Court has held that role.

    Imagine this... 2008, the election again goes to the Supreme Court who this time votes 5-4 for the Democratic candidate.  Republicans, still controlling the government for a couple more weeks quickly pass a law denying Federal funding to any state that casts its electoral votes for the Democrat...

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:34:19 PM PDT

    •  The "power of the purse"

      I have many problems with this diary, and with Ms. Pelosi's comments.

      First, the separation of powers is like this.

      Congress makes the Federal law.  Any areas of law which are not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved for the states.  

      The Administration enforces the law.

      The Courts interpret the law (and ensure it is compliant with the constitution).

      Part of making the law includes passing the budget.

      States who do not make their drinking age 21 do not get Federal Highway Funds.  This is the "power of the purse"

      Using the "power of the purse" to ensure that federal funds are not used in the seizure of private property is a legitimate excercise by Congress.

      Pelosi, in her comments, appears to be attempting to imply that excersizing the power of the purse is an unconsitutional abuse of congressional power.  This goes against historical precedent when it comes to budgetary matters such as deciding what Federal Funds can and can not be spent on.  If Congress is not allowed to place restrictions on which projects are entitled to Federal Funds, then who is?

      by jandrewmorrison on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:07:58 PM PDT

    •  But your scenario is legal....

      I would love to see the Republicans try to get away with this.  From a brief analysis, it may face some ethical questions, but appears to be a perfectly legal law.  Of course, the Democrats could fillabuster it before it became law (unless Frist starts arguing that fillabustering legislation goes against Senate History)

      The checks and balances work.  That is why your scenario wont happen.

      by jandrewmorrison on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

•  This Congress is above the law...

  Doesn't everyone realize that?  All hail the 109th!  They shall make laws respecting the establishment of religion, and  abridging the freedom of speech.  They shall override any branch of government as they see fit.  They write the checks and keep the balance.  All hail the 109th!

  by AnthonySF on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

  •  Wha?

    The laws they make will all be reviewed by the Supreme Court to ensure that they are compliant with the requirements of the Constitution.

    The problem we are currently facing in our nation is that Congress is passing laws which allow for enforcement of the laws without any accountability by the enforcing parties.

    Every challenge to the Patriot Act is met with "show me where the abuses are".  Under the Patriot Act the Administration does not need to make public the records of the arrests, and it is illegal for those who are served with "secret subpeonas" to disclose them, so the abuses can not be recorded or tracked.

    Delay and Frist are a little out of hand, but the act that it took 8 months for one Congressman to even introduce Social Security "reform" legislation, and then it was some no-name who did it, leads me to believe that Congress may not be the real problem here.

    by jandrewmorrison on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:16:44 PM PDT

    •  Good points.

      I was referring to their attack on judges earlier this year, the flag-burning amendment (which goes directly against the 1st Amendment), and the hyper-evangelical faction that has seized control of the GOP.

      by AnthonySF on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:32:18 PM PDT

•  Nothing wrong with this

  The Supreme Court specifically said legislatures could pass laws restricting use of eminent domain.  Feds using fund control to enforce actions on states is a normal and accepted part of American governance (e.g., seat belt laws).  There's a lot of dissent on Kelo here.  I for one am horrified that municipalities can seize property solely to increase their tax base (which is the change Kelo makes to existing law) and if the Dems are identified as the "pro-unfair-seizure" party it will cost us big in 2006.

  In terms of Tom Delay, if voters have to choose between a corrupt Delay stealing millions, or Pelosi allowing their houses to be seized, they'll go with Delay.  People tolerate corruption if the must to protect their own interests.

  by curtadams on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:34:17 PM PDT

  •  So it's ok...

    ... it's ok to screw the Constitution if it helps you get elected?

    What country is this, because it ain't the America I grew up in.

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:35:12 PM PDT

    •  Screwing the Constitution?

      That is hardly the case, I think a lot of Kossacks are misinformed on the issue.

      I am not a legal expert so I won't get too specific (and correct em if I am wrong, but eminent domain has existed since the beginning of the public, the Constitution merely states that the state must pay just compensation when it takes land.

      Passing such a federal law does not screw the constitution, in fact the court clearly said that working through the legislative system is exactly how these taking decisions should be handled.

      The question here is who decides what is appropriate taking.  This law would make it a federal matter, as opposed to leaving it up to local goverments.  So if you want to oppose it any grounds it would be State's rights.

      It is not, however, screwing the constitution.

      by Dperl99 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:41:10 PM PDT

      •  It's declaring Congress to be superior to the cour

        The Supreme Court is the supreme arbiter in this country.  Tom DeLay wants Congress to be able to overrule the courts.  John Conyers is willing to give him that power.  The Republican majority is not going to overrule the courts on any decision we like - just on ones we don't like.  

        -Fred

        by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:48:33 PM PDT

        •  It is not overruling the courts

          The courts merely stated that the taking of land in the circumstances of the Kelo case is not unconstitutional.

          It is up to the government to decide what is and what is not appropriate taking.  Just because the Supreme Court says the taking of land by the government to give to private developers is not unconstitutional does not mean that it has to be allowed in every case.  That is why we have elected officials, to make these decisions.

          You may disagree with the policy, but I don't think it is congress trying to overrule the Supreme Court.

          by Dperl99 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:07:52 PM PDT

      •  That's exactly what I was going to type

        I totally agree with this sentiment - except that this bill could not be allowed to impact that actual parties involved in the Kelo case, right?  Because if it did, then that seems like it would violate the prohibition of ex post facto legislation, which is unconstitutional.  I am totally for legislation that would make illegal eminent domain seizures made solely on the basis of trying to take land and hand it over to private developers, as long as it is narrowly defined in this way.  Eminent domain for true public-use projects (the usual examples: roads, hospitals, etc.) are a totally different ballgame.

        by salsa0000 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:50:54 PM PDT

    •  Really?

      it's ok to screw the Constitution if it helps you get elected?

      That's pretty much the vibe I've got from my government for as long as I can remember.  However, I'm still a young'un (27), so maybe you grew up in a more idealistic age.  But as far as I can tell, that's essentially the history of government, US or any other.  Screw the people as much as you can while still retaining power.  Democracy lowers the level of screwing the people will tolerate, but it does not come close to eliminating it.

      by JoeOhioan on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:57:18 PM PDT

•  the supreme court decision is very

  worrisome.  the idealaw that private property can be seized for private development because a town WANTS to have business development is very disturbing.

  this could seriously upset the balance of homeowner rights v private development.

  in the past, individuals were not forced to sell their legal property if they chose not to.  the private developer had the "choice" to offer enough money to "convince" the owner or build around.

  a classic case of this was the Russian Tea Room on 57th st.  a developer bought all the land around the tea room in the '90s with the ida of buying it and tearing it down.  Faith refused to sell - and so, in the midst of the huge new high rises, a small beacon of the past stood between them - a little building housing one of the greatest ny traditions (which, sadly, closed a few years ago).  

  this ruling by the supremes was a terrible one.  it flies in the very face of democracy.  

  that conyers would join sennsenbrenner does not worry me - it would be disturbing to oppose ALL policies on a strict partisan line - our government AND we stand to lose much more by bringing every act to a dead halt.

  blind partisanship is counterproductive - since in the future, afterbush, we really DO need to go back to the business of running this nation to the benefit of all americans.

  by edrie on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:34:28 PM PDT

•  Interesting

  Your response seems a bit unreasonable.  Does it matter who he allies himself with if the end result is the repeal of a law that is bad for his constituents?  I, personally, am a dyed in the wool Democrat.  I find this decision alternate understandable and reprehensible.  If Mr. Conyers only finds it reprehensible, then why should he stand in the way of legislation he agrees with just because some unsavory characters are sponsors?

  Honestly- an expectation that a Congressperson will always oppose Republicans no matter the nature of the legislation is a bit naive.  This nation is not meant to be run by warring factions as it currently is.  There will always be a sort of tension, but conversation and bipartisan support are -required- for this nation to not be in the shitter.

  I think you should take a long hard look at your expectations of our representatives in Congress.  If you expect everyone to fight and scrap every piece of legislation sponsored by the other "team", then how does that separate you from the Republican abuse of power?

  Contention for the sake of contention is a neocon trait.  There is a nation to run, even if partisanship is rank at the moment.

  by electricgrendel on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:36:10 PM PDT

  •  Marbury v Madison

    In 1803 the Supreme Court ruled that it was the final arbiter, and we've upheld that for 200+ years.  Tom DeLay and his ilk want to undo that so that Congress can take over in cases like Terry Schiavo, prayer in public schools, and religious displays; there is a very slippery slope here.  

    Nancy Pelosi points out that the Republicans want to use their majority to undermine Supreme Court decisions that they don't like.

    John Conyers may not like this decision, but is it worth sacrificing our constitution for?  He's jumping in bed with the devil to win a few votes.  It's ok to say that the Supreme Court is wrong but we have to comply and work within the framework, not abandon the framework when we don't like it.  Same logic that the Republicans use here is what they use to justify the nuclear option in the Senate.  We are a nation of laws - the Democrats didn't riot when the court named Bush president in 2000 did we?  

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:47:22 PM PDT

    •  Politcally Tone Deaf

      If you think THIS is the case to argue the Separation of Powers you are politically tone deaf.  You probably don't own any property either.  People work hard to earn the right to own property in this country and don't take it lightly when a major corporation can come out and convince a couple of town councilmen that they are more important than YOUR life's work.  

      The only conclusion I can come to at this point is that the Kelo legal team was sub-par.  There is no reason why PFIZER's desire to own property - with a view I might add - should be placed above at least one denizen's birth right - one of these people was BORN in the house in which they live.  

      Finally, Congress is perfectly within their rights to re-tool laws based on Supreme Court Decisions.  That is part of the BALANCE of POWER on this country.  This bi-partisan effort is not an end-run around the Court's decision.  It is a correction that is necessary.

      Wal-Mart tried to strong-arm my family into selling land we have held for nearly 200 years.  They refused to pay a fair market price - keep in mind that this shit could no only devalue your "castle" in the end, but also ensure that you take a step down when you go looking for another.

      This case is not the case to argue separation of powers.  By they way, DeLay is successfully turning shit Schiavo fiasco into gold with every Dem that opposes this bill.  

      Democrats HAVE to LISTEN to the PEOPLE or they are destined to lose every time.

      by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:12:32 PM PDT

      •  I don't like the decision

        I do own a house, and I am very well aware that the government can now come in and take it from me for whatever reason and they get to pick fair compensation, which means they could take it at less than real fair market value.

        I hate the decision.

        I hate Bush v. Gore.

        I refuse to lower myself to the level of the Republican party and declare myself above the law.  This is why I did not pick up a gun and go try to take my country back after Bush v. Gore, it's why I instead fought within the political process, and tried to get Democrats elected including John Kerry.

        Sometimes taking the high road is more difficult and gives you an uneven playing field.  This is why it is hard for Democracies to fight terrorists because people have rights that aren't to be taken away.  Although the Bush administration has decided that it's better to take the low road here and pass the patriot act and torture people around the world.

        There are ways to fight this decision, however in my opinion this isn't one of them.

        -Fred

        by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:55:05 PM PDT

        •  It is not above the law.

          Schaivo was above the law because it was directed at ONE person.  The right of Congress to adjust laws based on Supreme Court rulings is part of the system.  The Court says "you've over reached" - the Congress figures out where their boundaries lie and act accordingly.  That is what THE BALANCE OF POWER IS ABOUT.  Democracy is about give and take - people don't like points of order or subtlety, but that is what makes Democracy great.  

          CHECKS AND BALANCES are a part of the system.  This was an exceptionally weird ruling - if the Robber Barrons weren't able to do it - why now?  There is good reason for Congress to step in on this issue and try to adjust the decision.  Again - Democrats who stem this tide are TONE DEAF and destined to an embarassing defeat.  Not looking after the "little" guy and being out maneuvered by the GOP in this arena is a frightening prospect.  

          There are days when our congress, our president and our courts make mistakes - the Democratic process is set up to correct those mistakes - don't stand on principle just for the sake of principle.  What principle do you choose is the most important question here.  If people looked at principles as immutable, we would never have abolished slavery.  

          by inclusiveheart on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:46:31 PM PDT

•  I still don't understand

  I don't know all the facts regarding the case law on eminent domain, but I still don't understand why opposition to it is a "conservative" issue.  I mean, we're talking about the government taking over private property, frequently in order to commercially zone it.  I thought standing up for the little guy against corporations and government was a Democratic thing, no?

  Now, as for using the federal treasury to circumvent law, I agree.  Personally, I think the ability of the federal government to use its funds in a carrot-stick fashion should be extremely restricted - to, say, making sure the states are using the funds for the intended programs.

  by tipsymcstagger on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:37:39 PM PDT

•  Let's be clear

  As a lawyer, I hold the rule of law above all else.

  However, let's draw fine lines here.

  1.  The Kelo decision permits governments to exercise eminent domain in the manner addressed in that opinion.
     
  2.  Nothing in Kelo or anywhere else requires the federal government to pay for it.  (Note:  the proposed law forbids local governments from using federal funds to exercise eminent domain under certain circumstances; it does not prohibit local governments from exercising eminent domain.)
     
  3.  Congress has the power of the purse - it can direct that federal funds be used (or not used) in whatever way can achieve 218 votes.  It is not a violation of separation of powers to use powers expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution.

  Think of it this way:  as interpreted by SCOTUS, the Constitution permits a woman to terminate pregnancy (or, rather, forbids government interference with that right except in certain circumstances).  But the federal government doesn't have to pay for it; in fact, Congress forbids the use of federal funds for abortions (and sometimes even family planning) in clinics receiving such funds, for military women, in foreign countries receiving federal money, etc. etc.  I disagree with this from a policy perspective, but I can't say that Congress does not have the power to do it.

  by PeteyP on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:38:27 PM PDT

•  I think Pelosi may be overstating her case.

  It doesn't seem like the threatened funding cuts are intended to be punitive -- Conyers et al. just don't want to contribute funds directly to projects where they feel they would be unjustly used.

  by Abou Ben Adhem on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:40:04 PM PDT

•  well, I hate to say it

  But I think the republicans are right on that issue.  That Supreme Court decision sucks.  I'm not going to give up my house for a fucking shopping mall just because some rich commercial developer has money. Conyers is right on target with his response to that decision.

  by The Party Plague on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:42:04 PM PDT

•  Detroit

  Well, Conyers may side with the GOP on this and Pelosi not because more of Conyers' constituents have had their houses torn down in recent years to make way for casinos (not sure if the casinos are in his district) or the Super Bowl or--well, you can tear down just about anything in Detroit and claim you're improving things.

  Whereas, in SF, you tear down a private building and you've just ripped down several million dollars worth of real estate.

  by emptywheel on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:42:13 PM PDT

  •  Good point.

    Empty piles of dirt here go for about half a mil, whereas I imagine Detroit is much more run down.

    This is the TRUTH (in the City):
    

    by AnthonySF on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:54:57 PM PDT

•  Is the bill egregious?

  I can't find any text of the bill yet.  Do you have a link?

  According to the article, the purpose of the bill is to:
  

  Key leaders of both parties in both chambers of Congress vowed today to use the power of the purse to negate this week's Supreme Court ruling allowing local and state governments to use eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes.

  Bills introduced in the House and Senate would yank federal funds from any city or state project that forced people to sell their property to make way for a project like a hotel or strip mall.

  This says that the intent is not to overturn the Kelo decision but to restrict it.  There is a big difference.

  As for Conyers, the black community has had 60 years of bad experiences with the use of eminent domain for "urban renewal" or "economic development".  Typically, what these projects have done is use eminent domain to force out lots of small property owners, consolidate the property into one big parcel and sell it to a private investor who sometimes is connected to the local powers that be.  I can understand why Conyers would want to restrict Kelo.

  As for Pelosi, her statement is puzzling.  See what I have underlined>

  "When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are in fact nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said. "This is in violation of the respect of separation of powers in our Constitution -- church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that, as well."

  Exactly how is withholding federal funds from a state, county, or municipal government the same as  withholding funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court.  The bill as described by the article (and if Delay and Sensenbrenner are involved, I do not vouch for the accuracy of the article) does nothing more than require states, counties, and municipalities to use their own funds in purchasing property under eminent domain for "economic development" projects.

  I would like to have Conyers explain what is afoot with this legislation.  I would also like to have Pelosi explain the strange statement that the article quoted.  Methinks the article left out something or misquoted something.  Or mixed statements about different things.

  I would not jump to hasty conclusions, but this is something to watch.

  by TarheelDem on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:49:00 PM PDT

  •  That's how you do it.

    When you don't like a supreme court decision, you don't fund it, and thus it can't be implemented.  They are pulling funds from anyone who wants to take advantage of the decision, and thus effectively (but not exactly "directly") overruling the supreme court.  The court has said that counties can do X, and the congress has said that they can't, because no county can survive without the federal dollars.

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:13:20 PM PDT

    •  It's not a decision that funds anything

      It says that counties can use eminent domain for properly created "economic development" programs.  It does not require the federal government to pay for those programs.  And most local "economic development" programs seize private property in order to build something big, like a stadium, which subsizes a private teamowner, or a convention center, which subsidizes a private hotel company.  To deny federal funding of these projects is not contradicting the Supreme Court decision, no matter how much you want a fight between Conyers and Pelosi.

      by TarheelDem on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:32:22 PM PDT

•  Your concern is off-base

  This is different from other cases where Congress has tried to undermine the Supreme Court by withholding funds.  People misunderstand the Kelo decision as some kind of broad endorsement of the eminent domain power by the Supreme Court.

  All the Supreme Court said is that the Bill of Rights does not place significant limits on the eminent domain power.  However, that does not mean no one else can restrict the eminent domain power.  State legislatures and courts, for example, are completely free to decide how broad the eminent domain power should be in their state.  Basically, it's a local issue.

  In John Conyers' home state of Michigan, a recent court decision, County of Wayne v. Hathcock, places very strict restrictions on when the state can use its eminent domain power.  This follows on the heels of the infamous Poletown development, an eminent domain case in Detroit that was widely viewed as a fiasco.  John Conyers also represents many disadvantaged persons and minorities and knows that they often end up on the short end of the eminent domain stick.

  There is a little bit of overreaching here only because eminent domain really should be a state issue, not a federal one.  If a state thinks that having a broad eminent domain power will foster economic development and make it a better place to live, Congress really shouldn't be placing its own limits on that.  But withholding funds in this context is allowable and it happens all the time.  It's completely different from Congress deciding that it's not going to fund a court decision.

  by Steve M on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:49:14 PM PDT

•  Pelosi Doesn't Speak for Me

  
  Make no mistake about it, this is not a conservative or liberal issue.

  Like gun control, Kelo decision is a defining issue that will shape electoral politics for years to come.

  If Democrats like Pelosi put themselves on the wrong side of this issue, they risk disaster at the polls for multiple elections to come.

  Indeed, the next nominee that comes up for SCOTUS will be subject to a Kelo litmus test. Those who view Kelo as "the settled law of the land" or those Congressman and Senators who support them will alienate the vast majority of the American public, left right and center.

  The use of eminent domain for private development projects -- even those supported by municipal officials who seek economic redevelopment -- is a stunning departure from hundreds of years of precedent and common law regarding property rights in the Anglo-American tradition. It is deeply unpopular and a sure loser.

  Pelosi needs to spend a little less time talking to big-ticket contributors with real estate development interests and a little more time talking with the people she claims to represent, unless she wants to be considered no better than Joe Biden in terms of her higher loyalty to business interests than to core values of American voters.

  The good news is that she has time to backpedal, since she's not too far out on the limb of mixed metaphor yet.....

  by greenskeeper on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:50:35 PM PDT

  •  not really

    "The use of eminent domain for private development projects -- even those supported by municipal officials who seek economic redevelopment -- is a stunning departure from hundreds of years of precedent and common law regarding property rights in the Anglo-American tradition. It is deeply unpopular and a sure loser."

    That's really just false, I'm sorry. The Berman v Parker (1954) cite used heavily by both sides in Kelo, makes it fairly clear that the precedent for eminent domain as part of an economic development plan goes back over 50 years.

    The SCOTUS did very little in the way of expanding previous caselaw, from my reading. I think the implications of the ruling are what has caught everyone by surprise--and if it leads to tighter local restrictions on what governments can do regarding takings, that's great. By and large, that's what the Kelo decision directed: fix it at the legislative level, if you feel you need to.

    by torridjoe on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:56:57 PM PDT

  •  Kelo IS the settled law of the land

    I find it easy to agree with you from a political standpoint, but the idea that a Supreme Court nominee could be forced to repudiate Kelo is ludicrous.  Kelo followed decades and decades of clear precedent.  It said only that the Constitution doesn't place significant limits on what a "public use" can be - and guess what, take a look at the Constitution, it doesn't!

    Now that doesn't mean that people can't place limits on the eminent domain power, through their elected representatives - they can and should.  But none of that means the Kelo majority was wrong just because it didn't create some new substantive due process test.  Nor does it mean the Kelo majority is unfit to sit as judges, or that any future nominee must repudiate Kelo or be deemed unfit.  

    by Steve M on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:02:27 PM PDT

•  Very Ironic

  There were tons of comments here against the SCOTUS decision when it came out.  Then here comes Conyers -- whom many (most?) of us on this blog consider to be a major American hero because of his courageous stands -- and he takes a stand to reduce the impact of the SCOTUS decision.

  So what happens?  He gets criticised because the position happens to align with GOP.  Sheesh!  That's like criticising the ACLU because they agree with the some conservative on PATRIOT.

  For crying out loud, no wonder we keep losing.  What's the point of taking courageous stands when you're going to get knocked down because you open the wrong end of a soft-boiled egg?
  

  by Caelian on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 01:52:43 PM PDT

•  maybe part of Conyers' motivation

  is that people most affected by the decision may be powerless and poor.

  However, he should approach it differently. I guess mostly by publicity, advocacy and coalitions (rather than by DeLay's way), since the last word on the present law has been spoken by the Supremes.

  Or maybe, by promoting a new law to state that eminent domain confiscations should not be discriminatory by economic class and without lawyer access.

  by joan reports on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:02:01 PM PDT

•  Look at the Decision.

  it did NOT say that taking land for private development was desirable, or even morally right, merely that neither the Constitution, as written, or the common law  prohibited it.  The decision was  about deference to Legislatures.  38 states already have laws that make Kelo null and void in their state.  Therefore, if a legislature wants to make  changes in its laws to in effect overturn Kelo they are free to do so.  I wouild imagine that so is the federal government, within its limited powers.

  However Derived Kelo is a VERY unpopular decision across the political spectrum (and Devastating to the poor and middle class)   If we let this become a republican issue they could well ride it back up the polls.  So good On COngressman Conyers for spotting the issue early.

  by Magorn on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:17:23 PM PDT

•  No knee-jerk responses to this

  There is a range of opinion about the Kelo decision, on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

  As far as Conyers is concerned, he has a history in Detroit to keep in mind, as others have noted above.

  Detroit once had a thriving African-American business and entertainment community - The Black Bottom neighborhood. It was taken by the government for a large urban housing development. This development is attractive, a nice area in downtown Detroit - but it was middle class, and initially more open to White than Black residents. And the Black business community was destroyed, to never be rebuilt elsewhere.

  Poletown, a working class community in Detroit bordering Hamtramck - which was then a largely White Polish community surrounded by Detroit - was taken by the government to provide space for several auto-related factories. Some say this was a "pay-back" for taking the Black Bottom neighborhood a generation or two earlier. The community is gone, but litigation over the Poletown condemnations continued until very recently.

  Quite recently, a scrappy, thriving restaurant-bar-loft area near Detroit's river front was targeted as the site of three permanent casinos. Businesses were turned out, only to have the casinos locate elsewhere, years after the businesses left.

  Conyers is the Representative for some of these areas, and his constituency is largely aware of all of this history. I am not at all surprised that he would take the position that your diary suggests.

  Neither do I think it always wrong for a Democrat to agree with Tom Delay. We cannot afford to blindly oppose everything any odious Republicans might favor. Once in a while, they might be right.

  by Kidspeak on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:21:44 PM PDT

•  hello

  I will respond in a few minutes.

  by Congressman John Conyers on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 02:39:31 PM PDT

  •  Some of us

    were confident you would ;)

    by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:32:18 PM PDT

•  Developers

  will steal everything given the chance. Look at what they've been able to do WITHOUT it!

  This was a terrible decision that is open to immediate and widespread abuse.  The citizen already has massive forces arrayed against him in such a fight----money, paid experts, often local newspapers who see more advertising $ in a new mall.

  Bravo to John Conyers or to any pol who opposes this awful decision.

  by steveb on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:23:56 PM PDT

  •  I meant

    WITHOUT the decision.

    by steveb on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:44:51 PM PDT

•  My reply

  The author writes, "this country works because the word of the Supreme Court is final."  Not so. The genius of America is that our laws are never final-the courts, the people, and even the lawmakers help to guide a body of statute and jurisprudence to a more equitable end.  

  We do not always make progress. But this country works because a vibrant democracy will recognize its mistakes and learn from them in time.

  The Supreme Court does have the final say in decisions that concern the exercise of a constitutional right.  The distinction between this fact and what the author asserts is crucial, because Kelo v. City of New London was not such a case.  Under our constitution, governments do not have such rights; individuals do.  

  These were the facts of the case at hand.  Pfizer, a large pharmaceutical firm, was opening a research facility in the city of New London.  The city's development agency approved a plan of a private developer to, in the place of 115 privately owned houses and a state park, build an "urban village" consisting of restaurants and shopping, marinas, and a riverwalk.

  The city sought to purchase the residential properties of the residents of the area.  Some agreed and some did not.  The city sought to condemn the properties of those who did not agree to sell.

  Among those who did not wish to sell was a woman who had lived in her house since 1918.  Another had made significant improvements to her house in the last ten years.  All parties conceded that the houses in question were in good condition-not the kind of property generally condemned by a municipality.

  To stop the condemnation of their property, the homeowners asserted that the condemnation (or "taking") of the property violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Among other things, the Fifth Amendment requires that a "taking" must be for a "public use".  The obvious issue presented is, of course, whether a "taking" for a private developer for commercial development is a "public use" if it is arguably for some greater public benefit-in this case, general economic development.  

  The Supreme Court ruled that the taking constitutes "public use."  I disagree.  

  I am concerned about the precedent it sets.  In my view, well heeled developers and other commercial interests could use this decision to successfully lobby municipalities to condemn residential properties under the auspices of "public use" because the commercial development might arguably result in economic development.

  In my view, if this argument works against the middle class residents of New London, then it will work to an even greater effect against my constituents in Detroit-and you could be next.

  To slow down the potential proliferation of takings and allow us all to take a deep breath and assess the ramifications of this decision, I cosponsored a bill that would deny the use of federal funds for eminent domain proceedings (in other words, a "taking") if economic development alone is the reason for such a taking.

  The author argues that my cosponsorship of this bill sets a terrible precedent.  He argues that it is a precursor to future laws that could deny federal funds to state and local governments in order to prevent them from protecting constitutional rights or to mandate that they act in violation of such rights.  The legal reasoning is terribly flawed.  

  First, as I have explained above, this was not a case where a city or state was asserting a constitutional protection (because they have none).  It was a case in which local government took action and individuals argued that it violated THEIR constitutional protections.  In no application could this bill prevent the expenditure of federal funds in the exercise of a constitutional right.

  The author also asserts that "Congress could deny federal dollars to any city or county that does not prominently display the ten commandments in their courthouses."  It could not.  Such a law would be held to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and no federal court would permit the enforcement a regulation so constitutionally deficient.  I would offer similar answers to the other hypotheticals about school prayer and Terri Schiavo.

  The author writes: "If you don't like a Supreme Court decision, you either amend the constitution or try to get them to reverse themselves.  You don't undermine the constitution by declaring that the Congress has the final word."  Congress is not delivering the final word on anything-we are simply pausing a moment to consider the effects of a broad government power on the lives of individuals.

  In cases where the courts are simply opining on whether a governmental action exceeds the scope of government authority, the people-through their elected officials-have the right to act to redefine the scope of that authority by passing laws.  That is what is being done here, and why I have cosponsored this legislation.

  Finally, as the length of this analysis suggests, this is a complex issue.  While I have cosponsored the bill, I think it should -- as with any proposed law -- be the subject of hearings and expert testimony and further deliberation and review.  I am not happy with every period and comma in it, and it will change before it moves forward.  As it does, I look forward to your input and comments.

  by Congressman John Conyers on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:37:22 PM PDT

  •  Keep up the Good Fight

    And know you have our sympathy for who you sometimes have to work with to do so.

    Any chance of getting an Amendment passed specifying that since a Corporation can never be a Citizen (can't vote, or join the military), they are entitled to NO Constitutional Rights??

    by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:48:11 PM PDT

  •  I served on the Zoning Committee

    in my NC city for 4 years.  Believe me, this decision will be abused mightily.

    Developers are often the largest contributors to local politician's war chests, sometime through their wives or secretaries.  When a rezoning comes up, they know who to go to.  But up until now, no one could make you sell to a private developer.  Our last protection has been shredded by the SC.

    by steveb on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 03:51:55 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for your reply

    Congressman Conyers-

       I don't necessarily agree with your position on this issue, but I appreciate the time that you have taken to respond.  I am keenly aware that the precedent set by the court in Kelo could lead to more arbitrary seizings of private property to benefit corporate interests, and I am, like you, opposed to the decision.  You and I just have a difference in opinion on how best to proceed from here.  I don't expect any two people to always agree on everything.  I appreciate the other work that you've been doing on other unrelated issues.  I hope that in this case you are right and I am mistaken, and the bipartisan support here for denying funding to communities who engage in these practices does not lead to congress using the power of the purse in other matters, such as religion and local government as Congresswoman Pelosi alluded to in her remarks quoted in the Washington Post piece.  As my wife reminds me (frequently), I'm often wrong, and let's hope this is just another one of those times that I'm mistaken.

    -Fred

    by FredFred on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 06:15:24 PM PDT

•  Recommended

  If for nothing else than the fastest and bestest smackdown by a politician delivered in a dailykos thread.

  The eminent domain SC decision was absolutely horrid.  Pelosi is off base.  Long live John Conyers.

  by dalemac on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 04:14:22 PM PDT

•  Conyers Is an American (and Democratic) Hero

  The last day of Kelo debate has greatly improved by opinion of Rep. Conyers and undermined by respect for the judgement of Rep. Pelosi.  

  As Fred admitted his wife might tell him, he and Rep. Pelosi are simply wrong.  As Rep. Conyers argues, legislative action to restore by statute restrictions on local government power that previously were thought to exist in the Constitution in no way "nullifies" the Court's decision.  The Court did not declare that city councils must seize homes to give to developers.  There is no court order requiring New London to proceed with its ill-advised plan.  And federal taxpayers are under no obligation to subsidize such behavior.

  Moreover, liberals who follow Rep. Pelosi down this path will rue the day.  This is a winning issue for anyone who joins in the fight to keep developers from grabbing homes, small businesses, and conservation easements.  I want to know why more liberals are not joining Rep. Conyers to lead this fight from the left.

  by elgodosimp on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 07:47:03 AM PDT